The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3318 of 2025 Yogendra Kumar ..…... Petitioner Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections FIR/ PR No. 21 31.05.2022 Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act Inspector of Excise, Sadar Range, Angul C.T. (NDPS) Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of Inspector of Sadar Excise, Range, Angul P.R. No.21 of 2022-23 pending in the court of Judge, learned 2 Special under Act-cum- Additional Sessions Angul court NDPS Judge, 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with C.T. (NDPS) Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of Inspector of Excise, Sadar Range, Angul P.R. No.21 of 2022-23 pending in the court of learned Judge, Special court under NDPS Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Angul, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.05.2022 at about 10.50 P.M., during the course of night patrolling on the S.H-63 near the temple of Lord Siva at Matika, the complainant D.K. Behera, Inspector of Excise, Sadar Range found an old Eicher Vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55-Y-2014 was going in a high speed. On suspicion, they detained the vehicle and Page 2 of 7 3 recovered 122.500 kgs of contraband ganja from the dickey of the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 31.05.2022. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has iterated that: "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of ’reasonable, fair and just" procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The State cannot be permitted to Page 3 of 7 4 deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 4 of 7 5 does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm—especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized is greater than commercial quantity weighing 122.500 kgs. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 7 6 10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner’s custody, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court seized of the matter, with the further condition that:- i. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv. the Petitioner shall approach the Arwakatra Police Station, District-Auralya, State-Uttarpradesh and clean the Arwakatra Police Station premises for a period of two months. The IIC, Arwakatra shall facilitate the Petitioner for cleaning materials like broom and other cleaning items so that he can clean the premises of the Police Station twice a week during the morning hour between 6.00 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. The report shall send by Page 6 of 7 7 the Arwakatra Police to the Police Station Angul Town. Angul. Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to cancellation of the bail. 11. Accordingly, this BLAPL is disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2025 15:34:40 Page 7 of 7